validation-sprint

Validation Sprint

Run a multi-agent validation sprint to answer: "Should I build this?" Three agents investigate in parallel, cross-examine each other's findings, and deliver a go/no-go verdict.

Usage

/agent-teams:validation-sprint "AI-powered code review tool for solo developers"

---

Overview

This command spawns three teammates with competing perspectives to stress-test a product idea:

• idea-researcher: Investigates the user problem (pain severity, frequency, workarounds)
• market-researcher: Investigates the market opportunity (size, competition, timing)
• idea-skeptic: Tries to kill the idea (finds structural reasons it should fail)

After parallel investigation, agents cross-examine each other's findings. The lead synthesizes everything into a Validation Verdict with scores and a BUILD / DON'T BUILD / NEEDS MORE EVIDENCE recommendation.

What you get:

• Three independent perspectives on your idea
• Cross-examination that surfaces blind spots
• Scored verdict (User Problem, Market Opportunity, Defensibility)
• Key risks with mitigations
• Specific next steps

---

Idea Under Investigation

$ARGUMENTS

---

Instructions

Pre-Flight Check

Before starting, verify Agent Teams is available in your Claude Code version. If teammates cannot be spawned, display:

This command requires Claude Code's Agent Teams feature.
Check https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code for setup instructions.

If not available, stop.

---

Phase 1: Briefing

1. Check for existing product context:

   • Read .claude/product-context/product-info.md if it exists
   • Read .claude/product-context/competitive-landscape.md if it exists
   • Read .claude/product-context/customer-segments.md if it exists

2. Display briefing:

── Validation Sprint ──────────────────────────────────────

Idea: [parsed idea description]

Assembling your validation team:
  1. idea-researcher   → Investigating the user problem
  2. market-researcher → Researching the market opportunity
  3. idea-skeptic      → Trying to kill this idea

Phase 1: Parallel Investigation (3 agents working simultaneously)
Phase 2: Cross-Examination (agents challenge each other)
Phase 3: Synthesis (final verdict with scores)

Starting investigation...
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

---

Phase 2: Parallel Investigation

Spawn 3 teammates simultaneously using Agent Teams:

Teammate 1: idea-researcher

Prompt: "Investigate the user problem behind this idea: [idea description].

[Include any product context found in Phase 1]

Your job: Determine if this is a real, painful problem for real people.
Assess pain severity, frequency, existing workarounds, and who feels this most.
Use your research-ops expertise. Search for evidence in forums, review sites,
and community discussions.

Deliver your findings in the standard idea-researcher output format.
Include confidence levels and evidence gaps."

Teammate 2: market-researcher

Prompt: "Research the market opportunity for this idea: [idea description].

[Include any product context found in Phase 1]

Your job: Assess market size, competitive landscape, and timing.
Use WebSearch to find real data on competitors, pricing, and market indicators.
Estimate TAM/SAM/SOM with transparent methodology.

Deliver your findings in the standard market-researcher validation sprint format.
Include source URLs and data gaps."

Teammate 3: idea-skeptic

Prompt: "Try to kill this idea: [idea description].

[Include any product context found in Phase 1]

Your job: Find every structural reason this idea should NOT be built.
Use your attack patterns: vitamin vs painkiller, feature vs product,
temporary differentiation, vague target market, incumbent response,
TAM inflation, switching costs.

Deliver at least 3 specific attacks in the standard idea-skeptic output format.
Rate each attack's severity. Be honest about which attacks are strong vs weak."

Wait for all three teammates to complete their investigations.

---

Phase 3: Cross-Examination

Send each agent the other two agents' findings for one round of structured challenges.

To idea-researcher:

"Here are your teammates' findings. Review them and provide your challenges.

MARKET RESEARCHER'S FINDINGS:
[market-researcher output]

SKEPTIC'S CASE:
[idea-skeptic output]

Challenge their findings from the user problem perspective. Cite specific
claims from their reports. Use the cross-examination patterns from the
team-coordination skill. Focus your 2-3 strongest challenges."

To market-researcher:

"Here are your teammates' findings. Review them and provide your challenges.

IDEA RESEARCHER'S FINDINGS:
[idea-researcher output]

SKEPTIC'S CASE:
[idea-skeptic output]

Challenge their findings from the market perspective. Cite specific claims
from their reports. Use the cross-examination patterns from the team-coordination
skill. Focus your 2-3 strongest challenges."

To idea-skeptic:

"Here are your teammates' findings. Review them and provide your challenges.

IDEA RESEARCHER'S FINDINGS:
[idea-researcher output]

MARKET RESEARCHER'S FINDINGS:
[market-researcher output]

Update your case based on their evidence. Which of your attacks still stand?
Which are weakened? Do their findings reveal new vulnerabilities? Cite specific
evidence from their reports."

Wait for all three cross-examination responses.

---

Phase 4: Synthesis

As the lead agent, compile all findings into the Validation Verdict.

1. Read all investigation reports and cross-examination responses.

2. Invoke the team-deliverables skill for the validation verdict template.

3. Score each dimension (1-10) using the rubrics from team-deliverables:

   • User Problem: Based primarily on idea-researcher's findings
   • Market Opportunity: Based primarily on market-researcher's findings
   • Defensibility: Based on all three perspectives, weighted by skeptic's attacks

4. Determine verdict:

   • BUILD: All scores 6+, no fatal skeptic attacks standing, convergence across agents
   • DON'T BUILD: Any score below 4, or fatal skeptic attacks unanswered
   • NEEDS MORE EVIDENCE: Scores 4-6 range with significant evidence gaps

5. Fill in the validation verdict template with:

   • Executive summary
   • Scores with justifications
   • Evidence from each agent
   • Cross-examination highlights (where they agreed, where they disagreed)
   • Key risks with mitigations
   • Specific next steps based on verdict
   • Dissenting views if any agent strongly disagreed with the verdict

6. Present the completed verdict to the user.

---

Phase 5: Cleanup

1. Shut down all three teammates.

2. Offer to save the verdict:

Validation sprint complete.

Would you like me to save this verdict to:
  .claude/product-context/validation-[idea-slug].md

This will be available to other PM agents for future reference.

3. If user accepts, save the verdict file. If not, done.

---

Error Handling

• If a teammate fails to produce output, note the gap in the synthesis and proceed with available findings. Don't fail the entire sprint.
• If WebSearch is unavailable, market-researcher should note data limitations and work with available information.
• If the idea description is too vague, ask the user for clarification before spawning teammates.

Related

• /agent-teams:prd-stress-test - After validation, stress-test the PRD
• /agent-teams:competitive-war-room - Deep-dive specific competitors